5 ms·
The conclusions of this analogy are fairly offensive if you only consider race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality in the equation. Who has it worse: A middle cl
by ANTSANTS 14y ago
The conclusions of this analogy are fairly offensive if you only consider race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality in the equation.
Who has it worse: A middle class white woman of that grew up with loving parents that supported her fascination with computers who now has to deal with an environment that seems strangely tolerant, by 21st century standards, of misogynistic behavior, or a straight white man who grew up poor with abusive parents and was bullied in school for his entire childhood (hell, maybe he even has some sort of mental or physical handicap!), but managed to focus his free time on learning about computers anyways, and does not today deal with racial or sexual discrimination in his workplace?
That's an extreme example, but I've heard enough startlingly ignorant retorts along the lines of "you don't understand, it doesn't matter how bad you had it, women always have it worse," or "how dare you spend most of your free time learning in front of a computer!" to know that I'm happier keeping the "privilege" debate out of mind.
I also think it's ridiculous to claim that a trans person is playing on "hard mode," while a "hacker girl" is playing on "nightmare mode." I don't think "possibly deals with some misogynistic behavior in her workplace and possibly feels discouraged by the lack of women in her field" is anywhere near as bad as having to deal with the scorn of a very large portion of society, possibly being disowned by one's parents (and very likely some kind of disappointment or other negative behavior from them otherwise, even if they try to be accepting), being avoided even by people who mean no harm (especially if you can't pass), or the constant mixture of shame, self-denial, and wistfulness you feel if you decided to accept living as the gender you didn't want to be. Ok, I think I've scraped enough off the tip of that iceberg.
Regardless, I think it's ultimately about as pointless to try to rank people by the amount of "privilege" they "enjoy" as it is to have a discussion about which fictional character would beat who in a fight. Why would you try to take someone's achievements away from them for the sake of an argument or a cause? That's just rude.
I can't wait for us to reach the "end game" where everyone has learned to be professional and only judge people by the results they bring to the table, but while I hope there is a path to it that does not focus on wracking every white, male, and/or straight person with guilt and witch hunting everyone who dares express the slightest hint of a contrary opinion, maybe I'm just a dreamer who doesn't know anything and the only way to change culture is to declare thermonuclear war on the loudest mouths and wait for everyone else to fall in line out of fear.
- koeselitz 14y agoKathy was absolutely not trying to rank people by how much privilege they enjoy. And you're misunderstanding the "hard mode" metaphor; factors are not necessarily sole determinants. It has been demonstrated, for example, that in science being female is a hindrance and being male is an asset. [1] That doesn't mean that there are not some males who have it worse than some females; it means that, for a male and a female coming from exactly the same background with exactly the same experience, the male will be better off. Being male is a privilege, and being female is a drawback. I can understand, however, that a lot of us white males (I am one too) find this threatening because it seems like it's intended to "wrack us with guilt," as you put it. I guess maybe there are times when that's the goal, but Kathy here clearly doesn't intend to shove that down our throats. She's trying to genuinely point out something that even people who've been in the industry for years (like she has) might not see. And that's jarring, and it's kind of shocking, but it is not supposed to be a guilt trip. It's just supposed to bring us to awareness of simple facts that many people these days aren't willing to acknowledge. [1] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/201...
- yummyfajitas 14y agoIn actual practice (as opposed to a narrow experiment) women are more likely to be hired, promoted, or given a grant than a similarly qualified man. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12062&page=R1 http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12062&page=R1
- koeselitz 14y agoThe study I linked to is absolutely not a "narrow experiment" - it's the largest and most thoroughgoing study of its kind ever done. The study you're linking to, by contrast, is a narrow experiment, is more than three years old, and has been superseded by new data. It'd probably be worth actually reading the link I gave.
- 14y ago